Concurrently Written Signatures- Pictorially Identical Signatures

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 02 | Feb -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 4.45 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 868
Concurrently Written Signatures-
Pictorially Identical Signatures
Swapnil Gupta1, Dr. Anu Singla2 and D. R. Handa3
1 2Institute of Forensic Science & Criminology, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi
3Document Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - ‘Although these signatures are looking as of
mine, but I didn't signed them’, is a statement often denied. It
may be a true or false statement but needs to be proved
forensically. Handwriting is nothing but the brain writing of
the person and as the brain cannot be duplicated so as the
writing. Hence, two different brains produce two individual
writings of the person concerned. In the same way, one brain
generates an individual writing but it does not mean writing
produced at each time may be exactly similar. It isnotpossible
because brain is not a machine so it cannot produce the
replica. There must be presence of certain natural variations
in repeated writings, whether these are written just after or
after long time. But, what will happen, if a person writes twice
or thrice similar writing/signatures at the similar time by a
multi instrument writing device? These signatures
‘concurrently written signatures’ may generate a complex
problem for a forensic expert. Therefore, there is an urgent
need for the immediate solution of this problem.
Key Words: Brain writing, concurrently written
signatures, identicalsignatures,multiinstrumentwriting
device.
1.INTRODUCTION
Handwriting is not hand-writing; it is a brain-writing.
Instead of calling it as handwriting it should be called
as brain-writing or head-writing. Some of the master
patterns are stored in our brain and our hand, foot,
mouth, nose, ear etc. merely work as a servant of our
brain. Since hand is only a tool to brain, which gives
command to write; that is why hand writes. All the
master patterns are stored in the Parietal part of the
brain. A complicatedactionsuchasthemanipulationof
a pen into producing universally recognizable shapes,
using a combination of the muscles of the arm, hand,
and fingers controlled by the brain both consciously
and unconsciously, is clearly likely to give rise to wide
variations in methods and effects in handwriting.
Fig 1: Handwriting is Brainwriting
In simpler terms, handwriting is a very
complicatedseriesofactswhichiscontrolledbyneuro-
muscular coordination and gained after a long
continued practice. Hence, there is a direct role of
nervous system and muscular system in formation of
handwriting. A total of 27 bones and 40 muscles
involve, if a person writes with a hand.
Signatures are usually another form of cursive
writing, but need to be considered separately. A few
people use their name written in block capitalsastheir
signatures, but normally cursive writing is used.
Generally, signatures can bedividedintotwotypes-(a)
those closely resemble with thenormalcursivewriting
of the person and are not more than the name written
in his or her normal writing and (b) whereadistinctive
mark is made, barely readable or completely illegible.
Fig 2: Types of Signatures

Principles in the Identification of Handwriting
• No two people write exactly alike.
• Individual characteristics that are unique to a
particular writer exist in every person’s handwriting,
distinguishing it from every other handwriting.
• The act of writing is a skill learned throughrepetition
until it becomes a habit.
• A person’s normal form of writing is based on mental
images of learned letter designs.
• People stylize their writing from the method they
were taught.
• People adopt writing styles by copying those they
like.
• Many writing habits are subconscious and therefore
cannot be changed by the writer.
• A person’shandwritingchangesoverthecourseofhis
or her lifetime.
Natural Variations
Like writings, a signature is also subject to natural
variations. No one can reproduce a signature exactly
alike, as in case of printed signatures. Wide variations
can be found in the output of a person’s writing. As
with writings, some people are quite consistent and
others extremely variable. Signatures can be made at
various places; some signatures are comfortablymade
and therefore show definite natural variations. In
others, where there is difficulty in writing, the results
may be somewhat different.
Although, the natural variations found in the writings
of one person can be contained within a defined range
for each letter, occasionally there are odd examples
where variations do not fall within the range.
Accidental events may be caused due to jolting of the
pen or difficulties of control near the bottom of the
page. Example where no apparent reason is present
results into a letter being written sufficiently different
from all other. Such differences should not be taken as
evidence of another writer. However, if the range
within which all or nearly all of the examples of a
particular sample fall differs from the range of
variation of the same letter in another sample. This
shows that the samples may be written by different
writers. Sometimes these differences,calledconsistent
differences, are quite small. But their reproducibility
within each sample and their consistency may be
different between the samples and it is of greater
significance than a largerdifferenceofasingleexample
that may be one-off and atypical. It is rare to find only
one example of a consistent difference between two
samples of writing. Normally, there will be far more
difference than one in the writings of two people and
none in the natural writings of one person.
Fig 3: Natural Variations in Signatures
Some authors have written on the subject of
distinguishing between writings/ signatures executed
at one and the same time and those executed at
different times. Diversity notwithstanding, like many
other questioned document problems the question is
usually one of authentication, fabrication oralteration.
This requires a study in search of evidence that
signatures, writings or entries, purportedly made on
different and separate occasions were, in fact, written
at one and the same time or made on a single occasion
were, in fact, the products of separate writing
instances.
There is also some diversity in the manner in
which authors refer to the two writing circumstances.
Some use the terms single entries and multientries,
others use same time and different time. Some call
them periodic entries, others prefer to say made
separately or made sequentially. Even the more
ambiguous terms like continuous and uninterrupted
and their antonyms are occasionally employed. Some
use synchronous and its antonym asynchronous in the
sense of the Oxford dictionary that defines
synchronous as: “happening at the same time,

coincident in time, contemporary in occurrence,
related to different events of the same time or period,”
but not simultaneous in the strictest sense as in a
stroke by stroke reproduction. That would involve a
mechanical or electronic device to create two or more
writingsfromthesamesingularmovementofthehand.
Fig 4: Two writing with same brain at similar time
Generally, one signatureiswrittenatatimebut
what will happen, if two or more signatures can be
written at a same time? (Fig 5) The latest scenario
involves the formation of signatures with a manual
device. If such type of formation is possible by the
person himself, it may generate some pictorially
identical signatures as they may be having uneven pen
pressure as in the case of normal signatures of the
person concern.
The main scenario isthetimegapwhilewriting
the signatures, if two signatures are being written
simultaneously by a device having two instruments,
then the signature written/formed may be pictorially
identical. These signatures arecalledas‘Concurrently
Written Signatures’. These signatures can be present
in property related cases e.g. a person sells his/her
property and use two concurrent signatures onto two
different sheets of the same document. These types of
signatures are signed by the person concerninoriginal
and anyone can deny his/her signatures at later stage
for accepting as his/her original.
Fig 5: Multi Instrument Writing Device for
Concurrent Signatures
The scientific method of correlating the
observations is to construct a hypothesis and test it by
other observations, measurements and specially
devised experiments.Iftheseconfirmthehypothesis,it
stands; but if not, a new hypothesismustbesoughtand
tested. Thus a corpus of knowledge canbebuildupand
relied upon toprovideabasisforextendingtheprocess
further. Forensic science employs many analytical
techniques to identify, measure and comparison.
Basic aim of writing these signatures involves
occurrence of similarities among them. These
circumstances, described below are considered to be
conditions exercising control of the internal and
external influences on the writing. Accordingly, these
signatures required to be written:
 off course, at same time
 with multi instrument writing device
 at the same writing position (sitting or standing)
 with the same media (pen and paper)
 on the same surface (table or writing pad with
plain surface)
 for the same purpose (two or more sheets of the
same document)
 by the same person
 in the good mental and physical state

Fig 6: Two Concurrently Written Signatures by
Multi Instrument Writing Device
Forensic Examination for Concurrently Written
Signatures
In a questioned documentsignatures are often treated
separately from other writings when compared with
known writings. An attempt is often made to simulate
the signature of the closer of a check when the rest of
the writing is written naturally. Initials are utilized in
these instances simply as an abbreviated signature.
This explanation for their wide use does not suggest
that initials resemble any part of the signature of that
individual in every case. In fact, the disparity may be
surprising. In the majority of instances, however, a
close study of one’s initials can disclose at least some
basic correspondence with the first or capital lettersof
the individual’s signature.
To identify the person,whowroteaquestioned
document depends on the similarity between writing
habits manifest in the writing and those found in
specimens written by a particular person. While
weighing the evidence, consideration must be given to
writing variations. Since,variationsareanintegralpart
of natural handwriting; no two samples of writing
prepared by one person are identical in every detail.
The extent of variations differs among writers and,
consequently, natural variations form an important
element in the identification of handwriting.
Every writer has natural variations in his/her
writing. Just as some writers show more control or
higher skillthanotherwriters,some writershavemore
or less variations intheirwritingdependingontheskill
level and circumstances under which the writing is
executed. Because we are not machines, we cannot
exactly replicate our writing each time we write.
Though, it may seem so with highly skilled writers, a
person’s signatures are not exact duplicate each time
the name is signed. There will be slight variations in
each signature. A letter or character may even vary
whether it is written at first of a word, the middle of
the word, or the end of the word.
Insomecases,concurrentsignaturesvariations
are very less and occur only in minor details in the
signatures. In other instances, the formation of letters
and words will be very similar and around a master
pattern of the person concern. The reason behind this
small amount of variations is already explained by the
authors.
Fig 7: Similarities between Two Concurrent
Signatures
The initial examinationofhandwritingmustbe
done to determine whether the signatures are similar
and, if this is so, consideration must then be given to
the reasons for it. It is necessary to decide whether the
variations are typical of one writer, for this inter-se
examination should be carried out. This however is a
simplification of the position. The natural variations
found in the signatures of one person can be mistaken
for evidence of simulation. It is difficult to quantify the
minimumnumberofsignaturesneededtoestablishthe
range of variations, but between 10 and 20 made over
a period preferably including the time of the signature
in question is usually adequate.
It may alsoshowaclearoverallsimilaritytothe
genuine signatures, too close to have arisen by chance
match. It can be reported as a simulation with no
evidence that it was made by the writer of the genuine
signature. Not every simulation has clear evidence of
poor line quality, retouching, and other ‘classic’
features that demonstrate its deception. Others,
especially those made when copying simple short
signatures, may have a line quality not very different

from the signature and be formed without pen lifts,
retouchingsortracing.Butthisscenariowillbedifficult
in case of concurrently written signatures.
The careful and systematic use of evidence,
which is common to the many disciplines of Forensic
Science, is directed toward the identification of an
unknown. The process involves three distinct steps or
stages, tagged the Law of ACEs (Analysis, Comparison,
Evaluations).
Analysis or DiscriminatingElementDetermination
the unknown item and the known items must, by
analysis, examination or study, be reduced to a matter
of their discriminating elements. These are the habits
of behaviour or of performance (i.e. features or
characteristics andin other disciplines,theproperties)
that serve to differentiate between products or people
which may be directly observable, measurable or
otherwise perceptible aspects of the item.
Comparison the discriminating elements of the
unknown, observed or determined through analysis,
examination or study, must be compared with those
known, observed or recorded of the standard item(s).
Evaluation similarities or dissimilarities in
discriminating elements will have a certain value for
discrimination purposes, determined by their cause,
independence or likelihood of occurrence. The weight
or significance of the similarity or difference of each
element must then be considered and the
explanation(s) for them proposed.
Forensic examination of concurrently written
signaturesmayinvolvesomeparameters.Concurrently
written signatures tend to be more like each other in
quality, size, shape etc. than samples done at different
times. The followings points can be checked while
comparing it with normal signatures:
 Irregularities (i.e.inconsistencies)inpenpressure
and writing quality.
 Irregularities (i.e. inconsistencies) ininks, writing
instruments.
 The presence or absence of indentations in
subsequent pages.
 Inconsistencies in slant and alignments.
 Unusual inconsistency in margins, spacing and
arrangement.
Presentation of Handwriting Evidence
While giving evidence on handwriting, it is best that
the expert should describe his findingsandthereasons
for them at some length. So that the judge and jury can
see for themselves the reason behind the conclusion.
From this position,thecross-examinationwillnotbeas
effective in reducing the impact of the testimony. The
desired results can be achieved either directly from a
consideration of the writings in questionorpreferably,
by a short outline of the principles of the method
employed followed by a demonstration of the
application of those principles to the handwritings
before the court. The general principles can be
described verbally with appropriate clarifying
questions from counsel if it appears to him that they
are not fully understood, but the details of letter
construction and proportions are best shown by
photographicenlargementsspeciallyarrangedtoshow
the features of interest.
Briefly, the discipline must demonstrate at an
acceptable level:
1. Reliability of the behaviour that will bethesubjectof
study: i.e., writing.
2. Reliability of interpretation:
a. conspectus reliability- the agreement between
examiners as to what constitutes evidence in a given
sample, and how significant it is (inter-rater
reliability).
b. inference reliability- the consistency of judgments
across different samples from the same writer (test-
retest reliability).
3. Discriminative reliability of the process- the
consistencyofjudgmentsacrosssamplesfromdifferent
writers, including simulations.
4. Validity of premises: habituation and heterogeneity
of the population (i.e. the uniqueness of writing to the
individual).
5. Validity of process: the level of correctness of
assessmentsoranalyses,acrosssamplesfromdifferent
writers, or from the same writer.

6. Skill in analysis: the level of education and special
training required vs. intuition.
The document examinershouldbemorethana
technician; he must be a scientist, for the methods at
his disposal. Each questionwithwhichheisconfronted
is an individual research problem,but,likeallscientific
investigations, each has as its ultimate goal and i.e. the
discovery of the facts. To reach this goal the examiner
must be thorough, accurate, and completely without
any bias. His task is not to prove by some devious
means certain preconceivedideasofthosewhoconsult
him, but to establish the facts that tell of the
document's preparation and subsequent history
through a study of its identifying details and the
collation of its elements with those of known
specimens. The document examiner's work does not
end with the discovery of the identifying details in a
document. He must properly interpret them and
through logical reasoningarriveatacorrectconclusion
regarding the problem at hand. After arriving at an
opinion, he must be prepared to demonstratethebasis
and reasons for his opinion in a manner that a layman,
be the judge, juror or interested party, thoroughly
understands. Thus, he becomes both a teacher and an
advocate for the truth. The skilled examiner, by means
of photographic enlargement, charts and sketches and
careful explanation of the factors involved, should be
able to make his findings apparent to all who are
willing to judge with an open mind.
Conclusion
Science is possible only because some things seem to
be impossible. Logical description of complex words
contains within themselves the seeds of their own
limitation. Limits of knowledge are indeed fascinating
and their study thought provoking. Awareness that
there are limits to one’s theories even when they are
right in itself is another form of knowledge. There is a
path of discovery that unveils limits that are inevitable
bye products of the knowing process. A concept of
impossibilityseems to be a necessary pre-requisitefor
a scientific understanding of the world. Scientific
research is a continuous, on-going and unending
process. The study of limitations and glorious
uncertainties of one theory or hypothesis often gives
birth to a new theory, which, too will be self-limitingin
character and may be substituted inpartorcompletely
replaced by another hypothesis in future. Limitations
or failure of one theory should not, therefore,
dishearten or discouragethescientists,forwhoknows,
it may become a blueprint of tomorrow’s grand
discovery. Therefore, authors try to overcome this
problem of ‘Concurrently Written Signatures’ in a
forensic way. If the rescue of such problem is done
before the arrival and spreading of it in the proper
manner, must be the best thing.
Acknowledgment
Authors convey special regards to Director, Central
Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi and
Deputy Director (Documents), Forensic Science
Laboratory, Delhi for their support and facilities for
R&D work.
References
1. Caligiuri, M. P. & Mohammed, L. A. (2012), “The
neuroscience of handwriting- applications for
forensic document examination”, CRCPress-Taylor
& Francis group.
2. Chen, L. Kudla, C. & Peterson, K. G. (2004),
“Concurrent signatures”, Adv. in Cryptology-
Eurocrypt, LNCS 3027.
3. Conway, J. V. P. (1978), “Evidential documents”,
Chales C Thomas publisher ltd.
4. Ellen, D. (2006), “Scientific examination of
documents- methods and techniques”, 3rd edition,
CRC Press- Taylor & Francis group.
5. Foley, R. G. (1985), “Nearly identical signatures- a
supplemental exposition”, Presented at meeting of
the American Society of Questioned Document
Examiners, Canada.
6. Gupta, S., Handa, D. & Singh, M. (2012), “Forensic
handwriting identification”, Forensic Science for
CriminalJusticeSystem,Selective&ScientificBooks,
Ch. 2.
7. Harralson, H. H. (2015), “Developments in
handwriting and signature identification in the
digital age”, Routledge- Taylor & Francis group.
8. Harrison, W. R. (1958), “Suspect documents- their
scientific examination”, Nelson-Hall.
9. Hardless, H. R. (1970), “Disputed documents
examination&fingerprintidentification”,Lawbook
company.
10. Hilton, O. (1993), “Scientific examination of
questioned documents”, Revised edition,CRCPress
LLC.

11. Huber, R. A. & Headrick,A.M.(1999),“Handwriting
identification- facts and fundamentals”, CRC Press
LLC.
12. Kelly, J. S. & Lindblom, B. S. (2006), “Scientific
examination of questioned documents”, CRC Press-
Taylor & Francis group.
13. Koppenhaver, K. M. (2007), “Forensic document
examination- principles and practice”, Humana
Press Inc.
14. Koppenhaver, K. M. (2015), “Characteristic of
authentic writing”, The Scientific Journal of the
International Association of Document Examiners,
Vol. 1, pp. 17-22.
15. McCarthy, J. F. & Winchester, J. (1973), “The
autopen”, Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp. 441-447.
16. Morris, R. N. (2000), “Forensic handwriting
identification: fundamental concepts and
principles”, Academic Press.
17. Osborn, A. S. (1929), “Questioned documents”, 2nd
edition, Boyd printing company.
18. Singh, M., Vaid, B. A. & Jasuja, O. P. (2005), “Limits
of science, or the science of limits? A document
expert’s dilemma", The Forensic Scientist OnLine
Journal, Vol. 8.
19. Sharma, B. R. (2012), “Treatise on handwriting
forensics”, Universal law publishing ltd.
20. Woodward, W. R. (1906), “Means for
simultaneously writing a plurality of signatures or
inscriptions”, Complete Specifications.

Concurrently Written Signatures- Pictorially Identical Signatures

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Concurrently Written Signatures- Pictorially Identical Signatures

Similar to Concurrently Written Signatures- Pictorially Identical Signatures (20)

More from IRJET Journal

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Concurrently Written Signatures- Pictorially Identical Signatures